Curious Scientific Investigators Solve Museum Mysteries

 

Elizabeth Wood

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis

 

Rick Crosslin, Michele Schilten, and Jean Deeds

The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis

Introduction

The museum’s mission is to create extraordinary learning experiences that have the power to transform the lives of children and families. Over the years the museum emerged as a leader in the children’s museum field and is noted among all museums for its excellence and creativity in exhibits, educational programming and community outreach (AAM, 2004). The museum strives to uphold its mission to educate the public through its exceptional exhibits, educational programming and collections. Serving more than one million children and families annually, the museum attracts over 100,000 students and teachers each year, while approximately 280,000 children and families visit the museum through free or reduced admission prices. The museum provides free memberships to museum neighbors and hosts four free days annually, plus a monthly free evening for families. While the museum’s primary audience is children through age eleven, museum staff implement family learning strategies into new exhibits and programs to expand audiences. In addition, the museum has special opportunities for the K – 8 school audience, educators, neighborhood residents and adolescents.

Most museums and science centers operate within a free-choice learning framework (Falk & Dierking, 2002) which promotes choice and control by visitors to learn and experience in their own way. We believe that providing this type of environment for school visitors is critical in helping to highlight and model key National Science Education Standards (NSES). In developing our programs for students and teachers, we are keenly aware of the need to demonstrate the ways in which teachers can “change emphasis” in their science programming. We support this awareness by modeling strategies around teaching, demonstrating an intentional orientation to content and inquiry standards, and offering staff development to support the implementation of these strategies. The museum is uniquely positioned to demonstrate free-choice, inquiry-based learning as a new way for teachers to do science in their classrooms.

The vision for the Curious Scientific Investigators (CSI) program is to support learning by all members of a classroom community, stimulate a life-long interest in science and demonstrate the museum as a place of investigation. We designed a program that mixes the best the museum has to offer with classroom instruction. We want to see kids and teachers doing real science. The program targets three areas of emphasis: (a) guiding students in active and extended scientific inquiry, (b) developing teacher skills in integration of science knowledge, and (c) helping teachers implement inquiry strategies. The program combines the strong informal learning orientation of the museum with these elements of the NSES standards into a cohesive program that incorporates teacher professional development, small group inquiry experiences, student-centered learning and content-rich experiences. These learning opportunities are grounded in the inquiry-based environment at the museum that promotes interaction and collaboration.  

In developing the CSI program, we worked closely with partners in local districts.. Through multi-year collaborations with area schools, the museum staff identified strategies to support educators in the integration of science content knowledge and practices. Details that can hinder both visits to the museum and doing real science in the classroom were also addressed. Elementary teachers needed a model for building inquiry-based science experiences in the classroom. They needed a way to gain professional development that promotes an integration of theory and practice–one that worked with their schedules. Educators and administrators wanted us to find a way to support student visits to the museum when few chaperones could be found. Our partners in the local school districts wanted to improve science instruction in the classroom with the ultimate goal of increasing student science achievement. 

To respond to these needs, the museum created a science education liaison position. The person hired for this position is an employee of one of the local school districts but serves on the staff of the museum to build the partnership. Our goal for the pilot program was to build a strong inquiry-based, guided science program that exemplifies scientific enterprise and can be used as a “focused science experience” highlighting one section of the science curriculum. Museum staff and district partners anticipated that individual teachers would use these investigations as a template to create other similar experiences in their school or classroom with the other areas of the science curriculum. Using school-based teams of teachers from the same grade level, we worked with teachers to support their learning and development of curriculum that extended the museum format and experience and built their interest in teaching science.

Using museum exhibits and gallery spaces allowed us to demonstrate ways in which teachers and students can better practice and apply the use of tools, the scientific process, data collection and analysis of results. The use of hands-on learning, open-ended situations for discovery and learner-directed activity gave a strong basis to create programs that clearly model critical areas of the NSES standards, and it allowed us to build strong, high-quality programs that support the needs of teachers and promote life long interest in science for both children and adults.

A primary goal of the program was to create student-centered experiences that emphasized developing skills and concepts rather than knowing specific facts and information. It was important to offer multiple activities throughout CSI that would require students to implement skills and strategies learned, use process skills and analyze data, in as many real-life situations available in the museum setting. Furthermore, it seemed critical that the program center on a series of extended investigations using science concepts and process through the use of tools, analysis and synthesis of data. 

Perhaps one of the most noteworthy challenges for teachers is the lack of other adults to help students in inquiry-based experiences. The program had to build a cadre of well-trained volunteers to support positive adult-child interaction through discussion, exploration and application of ideas and science concepts. We were fortunate to attract many retired scientists, engineers and educators to work with the program. Training our volunteers is as critical as the work we do with teachers. We work continuously to build science literacy in all participants in the program – teachers, volunteers and students.

Above all, we continually encourage all participants to own their investigations. “This is science. Don’t take my word for it, try it yourself,” is the main theme of CSI’s concept and design. Says one volunteer in a written survey: “I’ve learned even more the power of discovery as related to learning and retention in children. If they can explore and question themselves, they will remember not only the results, but also the process.” We strive to generate opportunities for the adult volunteers, the teachers and the students to learn what science is all about. 

The Curious Scientific Investigators Program

Curious Scientific Investigators (CSI) began at the museum in 2004 as a focused learning investigation combining classroom-based activities, on-site teacher professional development and small-group museum-based activities that takes place over time in the classroom and at the museum. While the museum is the primary point of contact for the experience, the program is divided into three parts: in-school activities and preparations, data collection at the museum, and follow-up activities back in the classroom. Using the museum galleries and resources as a learning lab, the program models a realistic scientific investigation that reflects best practices in science education for students and teachers. These activities exemplify many of the NSES content and inquiry standards, including: (a) the ability to understand scientific concepts and developing abilities of inquiry, (b) investigating and analyzing science questions, and c) recognizing science as argument and explanation.

Centered on a mystery at the museum, students spend a series of pre-visit class sessions learning how to use the scientific processes and use tools to solve problems. During a museum visit, trained museum volunteers (called Museum Friends) help teams of students use tools and scientific strategies to solve the mystery. While students are collecting data throughout the museum, their teachers are simultaneously receiving professional development. These workshops support teachers in learning science content and show them how to guide students through the inquiry process, providing direction for selecting and adapting science-based experiences and curricula. Teachers are encouraged to promote student ownership of the scientific process. The program makes use of web-based videoconferencing and a course delivery system to disseminate CSI materials to students, teachers and volunteers. 

This is not your ordinary field trip. Most museums provide enrichment materials that are highly supportive, but not germane, to the success of the project. This program is unique because the pre-and post-visit activities are essential – not extra-curricular – to the project. The process of incorporating lessons before, during, and after the museum visit is intended to meet the NSES standards to use investigations over extended periods of time. The next sections outline the activities that happen throughout the program.

The CSI program includes two types of pre-visit activities --one for teachers and the other for students. Classroom teachers attend orientation sessions with museum staff to receive materials and training on the core activities necessary to support the student experience in the program.  Prior to visiting the museum, students receive information about a mysterious stain left by a visitor at the museum (see box). They are told that the stain could have come from one of five places in the museum: the Water Clock, the Pond, the Watering Hole, The Dock Shop or the Aquarium. During the first day of classroom activities students practice with the skills and processes needed to solve the mystery. They examine the evidence (a mysterious stain) and view a series of short video programs with information necessary to complete the investigation. 

Students inspect an evidence card that contains a sample of the stain and begin to review the existing physical evidence. Students familiarize themselves with the areas of the museum that contain liquids. In class sessions, they learn about scientific methods and science tools they will need to make their investigations. They discuss problems and questions, hypotheses (‘science guesses’), procedures, data collection, results and sharing. 

Students then review key principles of liquids and states of matter that may help them in their search for the origin of the stain. In addition to the main idea of liquids and states of matter, they learn to recognize and practice using tools such as a thermometer, graduated cylinder, pipette and hydrometer. Following their preparations, students form teams to begin the initial process of hypothesizing. Class teams meet prior to their museum visit to attempt to determine the source of the stain and clarify the primary question, problem and hypothesis.  

            The CSI program targets all third grade classes at a given school. On “CSI museum day,” all classes come to the museum to do their data collection. At the museum, we provide opportunities for students that parallel the content and inquiry standards—groups of students working together to analyze and synthesize data, implement inquiry strategies and use evidence to develop explanations— and we give them the chance to evaluate their work and to apply it to new situations. This cycle repeats itself throughout the entire program. 

 Proudly bearing their color-coded team badges, the student investigation teams meet up with a Museum Friend who will work with them throughout their visit to the museum. These five-person teams and their Museum Friends review key tools and safety procedures and talk about their team hypotheses. They also get to know each other a little bit. The small-group approach is a distinctive element of the program, not usually found in museum settings. We believe it is a crucial element for modeling inquiry strategies, building the adult-child relationship and helping build a bond within the group around solving the problem.

Students are told that they will need to make keen observations and ask lots of questions during their visit—both qualities of a good scientist. Each team heads to the particular exhibit where they will collect data. There, they study and learn about the exhibit, looking particularly at the liquids. They make observations and estimate the flow of the liquid. The teams collect temperature readings, hydrometer readings, and a liquid sample at their exhibit location and then visit all the other possible leak sites to make additional observations. Students love using their tools and equipment to scrutinize all aspects of the museum’s galleries. It is not uncommon to see small groups of begoggled students closely examining the floor with a hand lens! 

The museum is full of immersive exhibit experiences, many of which are full-scale dioramas. One in particular, the Dinosphere Watering Hole, poses an immediate problem—there are no actual liquids used in the exhibit! Museum Friends encourage the team to think critically about the evidence and where within the exhibit water may have come from. Eventually the groups determine that a nearby water fountain may be the source of the leak and are able to collect a sample. This is a great opportunity for us to work with students around their observation skills and ability to think critically about information. It also provides a reference point for the follow-up activities at school where students will apply what they learned at the museum to conduct a study of water from the school’s drinking fountains.

            We work continuously throughout their visit to instill critical questioning and a scientific way of thinking. Even during snack we look for opportunities to talk about science. Our snack time inquiry focuses on the different properties and states of matter. We provide all students with a hand lens to keep. We ask them to closely examine their snacks:  ‘Is your goldfish snack made of matter?   Is it a solid, liquid or a gas? Is your glass of water made of matter? Is your drink mix a solid, liquid or gas? What other observations can you make?’ These investigations reiterate key concepts, allow for a more informal use of science between Museum Friends and students and provide more opportunities to engage and explore.

            Before the end of the museum visit, the teams review their data collection experience and complete their team data sheets. This process of review and application of ideas is critical in supporting the student learning and helps to demonstrate for students the ways in which they were able to conduct an experiment with tools and good scientific thinking. The Museum Friends encourage the groups to think about all the observations and data collected. Eventually they will be sharing their data with their classmates, just like real scientists. In the end, we encourage students to recognize that they have been doing science all day long.

            When students return to their classrooms, each team presents their data to the class. The information is recorded on a classroom data sheet. The class then tests their hypotheses. Each teacher has received a set of tools and materials from the museum to do their final testing of the hypotheses. Students use samples collected at the museum along with examples of the stain to verify their results. The class attempts to reach consensus on their hypotheses based on the data collected. Groups create a final data sheet, class results and conclusion information and generate additional questions. Each class assembles a CSI Investigation Board to display their results to other classrooms at their school. These data boards, not unlike a poster presentation, allow the students and their teachers to demonstrate their process and results to others.

            In addition to the final testing, students complete follow-up enrichment activities to further apply what they learned in their museum data collection process. The students conduct a study of liquids at their school using the same process of collecting a sample and taking temperature and hydrometer readings. They create simple “water detectors” to continue their development of observation skills and determine whether water was placed in an apparatus overnight. Finally, students create written descriptions of their process and procedures for data collection and their experience at the museum.

            Teachers regularly send us examples of new ways they are applying the information in their classrooms and extending the learning. These include small group activities to practice using and recognizing tools and to practice parts of the scientific method. Teachers also use reading and writing activities to stimulate student thinking about their experiences. They regularly send us enthusiastic updates about the program:

“By incorporating the CSI Stain into my curriculum, it has made me aware of how the scientific method approach improves the children's understanding of how science works.  It hits on higher level applications.  Now, all my science experiments incorporate the scientific method.”

 

“[CSI] has helped the students to realize that science isn't all about how "smart" you are, it's about investigating on your own or discovering with a group how something works, why salt water leaves a residue when it dries, or which objects sink and which ones float.”

 

“Since my students have gained real life science experience through this project, I have been able to do more hands-on scientific thinking and investigating in my classroom.” 

 

            The museum hosts a CSI website where we invite all classes to post their findings from classroom to school. They are able to submit questions and writing samples, as well as meet with museum staff over IP videoconferencing to discuss their results and conclusions. The website allows for greater communication among students both within their own school as well as with other schools around the city. This is an area we hope to expand and build with the classroom teachers as another aspect of increased public discourse and debate.

Assessment Results

Our assessment of the learning that happens in the CSI program emphasizes key inquiry standards, including: (a) implementing inquiry strategies, (b) processing skills in context, (c) using evidence and strategies for developing or revising an explanation, (d) applying the results of experiments to scientific arguments and explanations, and (e) communicating science explanations. Our goal is to provide an opportunity for young people to gain basic skills in the use of science questioning and processes, tools and measurement to learn the states of matter, and to understand the elements of the scientific process. We want them to be able to recognize different ways that scientists develop hypotheses, make observations, collect data and arrive at conclusions (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Here, our objective is to create a situation where students conduct a science investigation to collect evidence that supports their explanation and see that they can do science. What is perhaps most critical is that we provide students with an opportunity to interpret, apply and gain perspective on the scientific process. One of our biggest challenges is in working against the tendencies caused by standardized testing to have students simply recall facts and information. 

Our evaluation process takes into consideration the multiple ways in which students can demonstrate what they understand and know. We created a series of measures that would provide this information both for our program as well as in support of the classroom teachers’ needs. This includes student presentations of their team hypothesis and results, opportunities for writing and discussion, pre- and post-tests and application of processes. Clearly, this is an area in which we are continually refining and revising based on the experiences in the program, our interactions with teachers and national standards.

The national standards for assessments in science education call for a focus on measuring what is most highly valued, rich, well-structured knowledge, and learning what students do understand. In each of these areas we are working with the teachers to collect data and assess student achievement. In our program, we use these criteria to develop a variety of measures that will help identify student achievement toward content and inquiry standards. These assessments are collected by museum staff and classroom teachers. Each of the components reflects an NSES standard:

·        A student readiness inventory during the museum visit assesses student abilities to use inquiry strategies;

·        Pre-and post-tests measure process skills in context;

·        Museum follow-up data testing gives a process for using evidence and strategies for developing or revising an explanation;

·        Writing samples show students applying the results of experiments to scientific arguments and explanations; and

·        Public displays and presentation provide opportunities to assess student ability to communicate science explanations. 

The two primary sources of student assessment used by the museum include a student readiness inventory and pre-and post-tests. These strategies allow us to focus on student use of inquiry strategies and the process skills in context. This information is collected by the museum and shared with the classroom teachers. Each is described in detail below.

 The Museum Friends are trained to work with students using inquiry-based strategies. They work with a set of questions that focus on scientific process, use of tools and critical observation skills. The Friends review the use of tools and terminology as a way of assessing the readiness of the group to perform the data collection process. During the second year, we asked the Museum Friends to complete a brief inventory at the end of each session that rated each group’s readiness on these items. The initial data collection shows that on a scale of 1 (students know little or nothing) to 4 (students are very well prepared), the Friends found students to have moderate to good preparation with the tools (Thermometer use 3.5; Hydrometer 3.3; Graduated Cylinder 3.3)  and the least amount of preparation with scientific process (2.9). Comments from Friends also point to the level of familiarity students have with tools and process:

“…Had obviously been introduced to the vocabulary, but could only define hypothesis. They knew basics about the thermometer, but needed reminders. It was the same about the graduated cylinder and the hydrometer. The kids knew about the stain, but they were confused about its significance. The kids had heard about the hypothesis but a bit confused about meaning. They had not been introduced to the scientific concept. They obviously did pre-trip work, but needed reminders and prompting...”

 

            “Group had not made correct hypothesis, but had excellent reasons about their decision.”

 

“This was a super group. Well informed, conscientious, worked well together. Asked good questions. Had lots of questions about the water clock. “

 

“Group was interested in the investigation and appeared somewhat well prepared for their day. They knew what the tools were and what they were used for. (Esp. the hydrometer). They seemed to really understand density. They understood a lot of the science concepts even if they didn’t know all the terms.”

 

“The kids were not at all familiar with the vocabulary. They were somewhat familiar with the tools. They knew the name of the thermometer and how it works, but didn’t know hydrometer or what it measures. They didn’t know the name of the graduated cylinder but they understood it measured “how much”. The kids had not heard of scientific method. They did make reference to the [pre-visit] video…. They were very excited to solve the mystery.”

 

One challenge we discovered is a need to refine this inventory to hone in on skills and process development rather than on student behavior. We are investigating new ways to work with the Friends to help gather assessment. As we continue to develop this program we look forward to revising this process so that we can better understand the relationship between the preparation of the students and the pre-visit activities, as well as the key areas of inquiry that challenge the students most.

The pre- and post-tests provided to teachers are a more typical measurement of knowledge, and they are also a way for us to see what kind of impact the CSI program may have on the overall learning of students. The pre-and post-tests help to show students and teachers the extent of their learning through the CSI program.  

Following an orientation to the program and before beginning the unit, teachers give students the CSI pre-test. After the completion of the full program (pre-visit activities, museum visit, post-visit activities) teachers give the post-test. Test items refer specifically to scientific tools and processes used throughout the activities in the classroom and at the museum.

We found that the teachers like to use these as a way for students to assess their own work and see their progress. Teachers report that students like to see tangible results of their progress. Most students make fairly large gains from pre- to post-test. In our first two years of data collection, 752 students took the pre-test and 713 students took the original post-test from all participating schools. The vast majority (87%) of students from both districts correctly answered fewer than 5 out of 20 questions on the pre-tests. Scores on the post-test show a remarkable difference in the student achievement: Students scoring 5 or fewer correct items dropped to 15%. The number of students scoring more than 10 correctly increased to 66%.

These increases in test scores demonstrate that the CSI program activities, including the visit to The Children’s Museum, do make an impressive difference in student achievement on the post-test. Test results from a subset of 190 paired pre- and post-test scores indicate an overall increase of 66%. The statistical analysis of this sample of student test scores reveals that there is a statistically significant difference between pre- and post-test scores (p=0.000).

            This process has been useful for us in working to develop systems and measures that help us gauge the value of the museum visit and the overall classroom experience. Still, we must continually revisit and revise our pre-and post-test questions so that we are focusing on the most highly valued knowledge and build our own understanding of what students are really learning. The results from the original test format and changes in the program suggested by teachers and Museum Friends prompted us to review what we were really measuring and as a result we have changed the test to better reflect the national standards. We designed the new test around the use of tools and scientific process. The new test consists of questions that measure the student’s understanding of when to use certain tools, how to make measurements, and how to identify parts of the scientific process. We ask questions such as: 

·        Use the picture of the thermometer to answer these questions: What is the temperature shown in Fahrenheit? What is the temperature shown in Celsius? 

·        Match the science tool with its name.

·        “Mary took the temperature of the water and recorded the results in her journal.” Which part of the Scientific Method does this describe?

Though we are not yet complete with the 2006-2007 CSI program, the results from initial pre- and post-tests suggest that while students are scoring slightly higher on the re-designed pre-test, they appear overall to be scoring as well or better on the new version of the post-test than in the original format. In the new test version, students are scoring an average of 5 of 13 correct answers on the pre-test and 11 of 13 correct on the post-test. We are confident that our continued evaluation of the assessments toward student learning and understanding is helping us build a better program.

            After two full years of implementation we are beginning to see the real impact of the CSI program. At a time when schools are plagued with an overwhelming pressure to teach to the test, the CSI program is thriving. While CSI is clearly a departure from the scripted pacing guides that many districts now favor, our two district partners, the Indianapolis Public Schools and Wayne Township Schools, have made a commitment to continue the program and increase the number of schools and students involved. The district support for the school liaison will continue, as well as an increased level of support for four new pilot programs, technology support and teacher release time for increased participation.

Teachers respond very well to the program because it provides them with focused instruction on both logistics and science content. We provide all the materials, forms and museum-day supervision – which greatly decreased much of the “science anxiety” that comes with a hands-on science investigation. We provide content support which greatly improves “content expertise” for the teachers. In addition, our highly trained volunteers allow the teachers to focus on the preparation and follow-up learning. The teachers who participate in CSI are seeing a program that models and applies strong science instruction. Teachers have responded positively to exploring science inquiry methods that they use and build upon throughout the year.

            For the students, this guided investigation changes them from casual learners to committed learners. Students ask questions, plan strategies, collect data and communicate findings. For almost all of them this is the first experience with the science enterprise. Prior to this program most students participated in literature-based science reading with very little hands-on measurement or inquiry. They have not participated in any science based investigation where they make findings based upon the data they collect. The CSI program requires students to communicate and defend their findings in post-visit class discussions. It provides them with an opportunity to explore science thinking and the scientific enterprise. For most students, this may be the only time they are exposed to these experiences until the upper grades.

            The third group for which the impact is real and observable is the Museum Friends. Many are senior citizens who have discovered a new comfort level in working with children and with science concepts, and thus a new zest for living in a multi-generational culture. These volunteers look forward to Tuesday mornings when they need to be sharp and focused and compassionate in dealing with children, many of whom are from underserved families. Other volunteers are young mothers whose enhanced knowledge of science through CSI gives them a basis for conversation with their own children and a better understanding of the work their children bring home from school. As one volunteer lamented last year when summer arrived, he missed coming and had “the Tuesday morning CSI blues!”

Future Directions

            The success of the CSI program with third grade classrooms across the city has been tremendous. Each year we work with 22 different schools in two districts and more than 1,500 students. This prompted us to begin piloting new programs for Grades 4, 6 and 7. Each of these programs will employ similar formats with professional development for teachers and authentic experiences for students both in the classroom and at the museum, particularly around topics of biotechnology and dinosaurs.

In addition we continue to look for ways to strengthen and support our professional development activities and increase student science literacy. Further, we are exploring the options available through web-based learning to include families in their own CSI investigations. Each of these avenues provides us with the opportunity to showcase the museum as a pivot point for learning activities. These kinds of free-choice learning activities provide young people and adults the opportunity to be in charge of their own learning and set the direction for their inquiry. We can provide authentic experiences that demonstrate the best opportunities for science learning.

            While we work to create new versions of the program, we are still focused on refining and building our evaluation and research of the student and teacher learning. The museum’s partnership with Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis provides us with the opportunity to work closely with science education and informal learning specialists who can help us increase our assessment capacity and assist in the on-going research and evaluation of the program. We work closely with Butler University and its pre-service science educators, offering a way to build their own science literacy while working with children.  Finally, our continued partnership with the Wayne Township school district gives us opportunities to work closely with teachers in developing curriculum and testing ideas.

            Our ultimate goal is to create opportunities in our community where the museum serves as a resource and a destination for science-based learning for children and adults. We want to create extraordinary experiences in lifelong learning that stimulate an interest in science and ultimately contribute to scientific literacy. As we like to say in CSI: “This is science. Don’t take our word for it, try it yourself.”

References

American Association of Museums. (2004). Accreditation report of The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis. Washington, D.C. Author.

Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D. (2002). Lessons without limit: How free-choice learning is transforming education. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

National Science Education Standards. (1996). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (expanded 2^nd Edition). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

 

 

Are you absolutely sure you want to delete this article? This process cannot be undone and is permanent.

Yes, Delete This Article

Are you absolutely sure you want to remove this article? This process cannot be undone and is permanent.

Yes, Remove This Article

 

 

 

 

 

Curious Scientific Investigators Solve Museum Mysteries

 

Elizabeth Wood

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis

 

Rick Crosslin, Michele Schilten, and Jean Deeds

The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis

Introduction

The museum’s mission is to create extraordinary learning experiences that have the power to transform the lives of children and families. Over the years the museum emerged as a leader in the children’s museum field and is noted among all museums for its excellence and creativity in exhibits, educational programming and community outreach (AAM, 2004). The museum strives to uphold its mission to educate the public through its exceptional exhibits, educational programming and collections. Serving more than one million children and families annually, the museum attracts over 100,000 students and teachers each year, while approximately 280,000 children and families visit the museum through free or reduced admission prices. The museum provides free memberships to museum neighbors and hosts four free days annually, plus a monthly free evening for families. While the museum’s primary audience is children through age eleven, museum staff implement family learning strategies into new exhibits and programs to expand audiences. In addition, the museum has special opportunities for the K – 8 school audience, educators, neighborhood residents and adolescents.

Most museums and science centers operate within a free-choice learning framework (Falk & Dierking, 2002) which promotes choice and control by visitors to learn and experience in their own way. We believe that providing this type of environment for school visitors is critical in helping to highlight and model key National Science Education Standards (NSES). In developing our programs for students and teachers, we are keenly aware of the need to demonstrate the ways in which teachers can “change emphasis” in their science programming. We support this awareness by modeling strategies around teaching, demonstrating an intentional orientation to content and inquiry standards, and offering staff development to support the implementation of these strategies. The museum is uniquely positioned to demonstrate free-choice, inquiry-based learning as a new way for teachers to do science in their classrooms.

The vision for the Curious Scientific Investigators (CSI) program is to support learning by all members of a classroom community, stimulate a life-long interest in science and demonstrate the museum as a place of investigation. We designed a program that mixes the best the museum has to offer with classroom instruction. We want to see kids and teachers doing real science. The program targets three areas of emphasis: (a) guiding students in active and extended scientific inquiry, (b) developing teacher skills in integration of science knowledge, and (c) helping teachers implement inquiry strategies. The program combines the strong informal learning orientation of the museum with these elements of the NSES standards into a cohesive program that incorporates teacher professional development, small group inquiry experiences, student-centered learning and content-rich experiences. These learning opportunities are grounded in the inquiry-based environment at the museum that promotes interaction and collaboration.  

In developing the CSI program, we worked closely with partners in local districts.. Through multi-year collaborations with area schools, the museum staff identified strategies to support educators in the integration of science content knowledge and practices. Details that can hinder both visits to the museum and doing real science in the classroom were also addressed. Elementary teachers needed a model for building inquiry-based science experiences in the classroom. They needed a way to gain professional development that promotes an integration of theory and practice–one that worked with their schedules. Educators and administrators wanted us to find a way to support student visits to the museum when few chaperones could be found. Our partners in the local school districts wanted to improve science instruction in the classroom with the ultimate goal of increasing student science achievement. 

To respond to these needs, the museum created a science education liaison position. The person hired for this position is an employee of one of the local school districts but serves on the staff of the museum to build the partnership. Our goal for the pilot program was to build a strong inquiry-based, guided science program that exemplifies scientific enterprise and can be used as a “focused science experience” highlighting one section of the science curriculum. Museum staff and district partners anticipated that individual teachers would use these investigations as a template to create other similar experiences in their school or classroom with the other areas of the science curriculum. Using school-based teams of teachers from the same grade level, we worked with teachers to support their learning and development of curriculum that extended the museum format and experience and built their interest in teaching science.

Using museum exhibits and gallery spaces allowed us to demonstrate ways in which teachers and students can better practice and apply the use of tools, the scientific process, data collection and analysis of results. The use of hands-on learning, open-ended situations for discovery and learner-directed activity gave a strong basis to create programs that clearly model critical areas of the NSES standards, and it allowed us to build strong, high-quality programs that support the needs of teachers and promote life long interest in science for both children and adults.

A primary goal of the program was to create student-centered experiences that emphasized developing skills and concepts rather than knowing specific facts and information. It was important to offer multiple activities throughout CSI that would require students to implement skills and strategies learned, use process skills and analyze data, in as many real-life situations available in the museum setting. Furthermore, it seemed critical that the program center on a series of extended investigations using science concepts and process through the use of tools, analysis and synthesis of data. 

Perhaps one of the most noteworthy challenges for teachers is the lack of other adults to help students in inquiry-based experiences. The program had to build a cadre of well-trained volunteers to support positive adult-child interaction through discussion, exploration and application of ideas and science concepts. We were fortunate to attract many retired scientists, engineers and educators to work with the program. Training our volunteers is as critical as the work we do with teachers. We work continuously to build science literacy in all participants in the program – teachers, volunteers and students.

Above all, we continually encourage all participants to own their investigations. “This is science. Don’t take my word for it, try it yourself,” is the main theme of CSI’s concept and design. Says one volunteer in a written survey: “I’ve learned even more the power of discovery as related to learning and retention in children. If they can explore and question themselves, they will remember not only the results, but also the process.” We strive to generate opportunities for the adult volunteers, the teachers and the students to learn what science is all about. 

The Curious Scientific Investigators Program

Curious Scientific Investigators (CSI) began at the museum in 2004 as a focused learning investigation combining classroom-based activities, on-site teacher professional development and small-group museum-based activities that takes place over time in the classroom and at the museum. While the museum is the primary point of contact for the experience, the program is divided into three parts: in-school activities and preparations, data collection at the museum, and follow-up activities back in the classroom. Using the museum galleries and resources as a learning lab, the program models a realistic scientific investigation that reflects best practices in science education for students and teachers. These activities exemplify many of the NSES content and inquiry standards, including: (a) the ability to understand scientific concepts and developing abilities of inquiry, (b) investigating and analyzing science questions, and c) recognizing science as argument and explanation.

Centered on a mystery at the museum, students spend a series of pre-visit class sessions learning how to use the scientific processes and use tools to solve problems. During a museum visit, trained museum volunteers (called Museum Friends) help teams of students use tools and scientific strategies to solve the mystery. While students are collecting data throughout the museum, their teachers are simultaneously receiving professional development. These workshops support teachers in learning science content and show them how to guide students through the inquiry process, providing direction for selecting and adapting science-based experiences and curricula. Teachers are encouraged to promote student ownership of the scientific process. The program makes use of web-based videoconferencing and a course delivery system to disseminate CSI materials to students, teachers and volunteers. 

This is not your ordinary field trip. Most museums provide enrichment materials that are highly supportive, but not germane, to the success of the project. This program is unique because the pre-and post-visit activities are essential – not extra-curricular – to the project. The process of incorporating lessons before, during, and after the museum visit is intended to meet the NSES standards to use investigations over extended periods of time. The next sections outline the activities that happen throughout the program.

The CSI program includes two types of pre-visit activities --one for teachers and the other for students. Classroom teachers attend orientation sessions with museum staff to receive materials and training on the core activities necessary to support the student experience in the program.  Prior to visiting the museum, students receive information about a mysterious stain left by a visitor at the museum (see box). They are told that the stain could have come from one of five places in the museum: the Water Clock, the Pond, the Watering Hole, The Dock Shop or the Aquarium. During the first day of classroom activities students practice with the skills and processes needed to solve the mystery. They examine the evidence (a mysterious stain) and view a series of short video programs with information necessary to complete the investigation. 

Students inspect an evidence card that contains a sample of the stain and begin to review the existing physical evidence. Students familiarize themselves with the areas of the museum that contain liquids. In class sessions, they learn about scientific methods and science tools they will need to make their investigations. They discuss problems and questions, hypotheses (‘science guesses’), procedures, data collection, results and sharing. 

Students then review key principles of liquids and states of matter that may help them in their search for the origin of the stain. In addition to the main idea of liquids and states of matter, they learn to recognize and practice using tools such as a thermometer, graduated cylinder, pipette and hydrometer. Following their preparations, students form teams to begin the initial process of hypothesizing. Class teams meet prior to their museum visit to attempt to determine the source of the stain and clarify the primary question, problem and hypothesis.  

            The CSI program targets all third grade classes at a given school. On “CSI museum day,” all classes come to the museum to do their data collection. At the museum, we provide opportunities for students that parallel the content and inquiry standards—groups of students working together to analyze and synthesize data, implement inquiry strategies and use evidence to develop explanations— and we give them the chance to evaluate their work and to apply it to new situations. This cycle repeats itself throughout the entire program. 

 Proudly bearing their color-coded team badges, the student investigation teams meet up with a Museum Friend who will work with them throughout their visit to the museum. These five-person teams and their Museum Friends review key tools and safety procedures and talk about their team hypotheses. They also get to know each other a little bit. The small-group approach is a distinctive element of the program, not usually found in museum settings. We believe it is a crucial element for modeling inquiry strategies, building the adult-child relationship and helping build a bond within the group around solving the problem.

Students are told that they will need to make keen observations and ask lots of questions during their visit—both qualities of a good scientist. Each team heads to the particular exhibit where they will collect data. There, they study and learn about the exhibit, looking particularly at the liquids. They make observations and estimate the flow of the liquid. The teams collect temperature readings, hydrometer readings, and a liquid sample at their exhibit location and then visit all the other possible leak sites to make additional observations. Students love using their tools and equipment to scrutinize all aspects of the museum’s galleries. It is not uncommon to see small groups of begoggled students closely examining the floor with a hand lens! 

The museum is full of immersive exhibit experiences, many of which are full-scale dioramas. One in particular, the Dinosphere Watering Hole, poses an immediate problem—there are no actual liquids used in the exhibit! Museum Friends encourage the team to think critically about the evidence and where within the exhibit water may have come from. Eventually the groups determine that a nearby water fountain may be the source of the leak and are able to collect a sample. This is a great opportunity for us to work with students around their observation skills and ability to think critically about information. It also provides a reference point for the follow-up activities at school where students will apply what they learned at the museum to conduct a study of water from the school’s drinking fountains.

            We work continuously throughout their visit to instill critical questioning and a scientific way of thinking. Even during snack we look for opportunities to talk about science. Our snack time inquiry focuses on the different properties and states of matter. We provide all students with a hand lens to keep. We ask them to closely examine their snacks:  ‘Is your goldfish snack made of matter?   Is it a solid, liquid or a gas? Is your glass of water made of matter? Is your drink mix a solid, liquid or gas? What other observations can you make?’ These investigations reiterate key concepts, allow for a more informal use of science between Museum Friends and students and provide more opportunities to engage and explore.

            Before the end of the museum visit, the teams review their data collection experience and complete their team data sheets. This process of review and application of ideas is critical in supporting the student learning and helps to demonstrate for students the ways in which they were able to conduct an experiment with tools and good scientific thinking. The Museum Friends encourage the groups to think about all the observations and data collected. Eventually they will be sharing their data with their classmates, just like real scientists. In the end, we encourage students to recognize that they have been doing science all day long.

            When students return to their classrooms, each team presents their data to the class. The information is recorded on a classroom data sheet. The class then tests their hypotheses. Each teacher has received a set of tools and materials from the museum to do their final testing of the hypotheses. Students use samples collected at the museum along with examples of the stain to verify their results. The class attempts to reach consensus on their hypotheses based on the data collected. Groups create a final data sheet, class results and conclusion information and generate additional questions. Each class assembles a CSI Investigation Board to display their results to other classrooms at their school. These data boards, not unlike a poster presentation, allow the students and their teachers to demonstrate their process and results to others.

            In addition to the final testing, students complete follow-up enrichment activities to further apply what they learned in their museum data collection process. The students conduct a study of liquids at their school using the same process of collecting a sample and taking temperature and hydrometer readings. They create simple “water detectors” to continue their development of observation skills and determine whether water was placed in an apparatus overnight. Finally, students create written descriptions of their process and procedures for data collection and their experience at the museum.

            Teachers regularly send us examples of new ways they are applying the information in their classrooms and extending the learning. These include small group activities to practice using and recognizing tools and to practice parts of the scientific method. Teachers also use reading and writing activities to stimulate student thinking about their experiences. They regularly send us enthusiastic updates about the program:

“By incorporating the CSI Stain into my curriculum, it has made me aware of how the scientific method approach improves the children's understanding of how science works.  It hits on higher level applications.  Now, all my science experiments incorporate the scientific method.”

 

“[CSI] has helped the students to realize that science isn't all about how "smart" you are, it's about investigating on your own or discovering with a group how something works, why salt water leaves a residue when it dries, or which objects sink and which ones float.”

 

“Since my students have gained real life science experience through this project, I have been able to do more hands-on scientific thinking and investigating in my classroom.” 

 

            The museum hosts a CSI website where we invite all classes to post their findings from classroom to school. They are able to submit questions and writing samples, as well as meet with museum staff over IP videoconferencing to discuss their results and conclusions. The website allows for greater communication among students both within their own school as well as with other schools around the city. This is an area we hope to expand and build with the classroom teachers as another aspect of increased public discourse and debate.

Assessment Results

Our assessment of the learning that happens in the CSI program emphasizes key inquiry standards, including: (a) implementing inquiry strategies, (b) processing skills in context, (c) using evidence and strategies for developing or revising an explanation, (d) applying the results of experiments to scientific arguments and explanations, and (e) communicating science explanations. Our goal is to provide an opportunity for young people to gain basic skills in the use of science questioning and processes, tools and measurement to learn the states of matter, and to understand the elements of the scientific process. We want them to be able to recognize different ways that scientists develop hypotheses, make observations, collect data and arrive at conclusions (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Here, our objective is to create a situation where students conduct a science investigation to collect evidence that supports their explanation and see that they can do science. What is perhaps most critical is that we provide students with an opportunity to interpret, apply and gain perspective on the scientific process. One of our biggest challenges is in working against the tendencies caused by standardized testing to have students simply recall facts and information. 

Our evaluation process takes into consideration the multiple ways in which students can demonstrate what they understand and know. We created a series of measures that would provide this information both for our program as well as in support of the classroom teachers’ needs. This includes student presentations of their team hypothesis and results, opportunities for writing and discussion, pre- and post-tests and application of processes. Clearly, this is an area in which we are continually refining and revising based on the experiences in the program, our interactions with teachers and national standards.

The national standards for assessments in science education call for a focus on measuring what is most highly valued, rich, well-structured knowledge, and learning what students do understand. In each of these areas we are working with the teachers to collect data and assess student achievement. In our program, we use these criteria to develop a variety of measures that will help identify student achievement toward content and inquiry standards. These assessments are collected by museum staff and classroom teachers. Each of the components reflects an NSES standard:

·        A student readiness inventory during the museum visit assesses student abilities to use inquiry strategies;

·        Pre-and post-tests measure process skills in context;

·        Museum follow-up data testing gives a process for using evidence and strategies for developing or revising an explanation;

·        Writing samples show students applying the results of experiments to scientific arguments and explanations; and

·        Public displays and presentation provide opportunities to assess student ability to communicate science explanations. 

The two primary sources of student assessment used by the museum include a student readiness inventory and pre-and post-tests. These strategies allow us to focus on student use of inquiry strategies and the process skills in context. This information is collected by the museum and shared with the classroom teachers. Each is described in detail below.

 The Museum Friends are trained to work with students using inquiry-based strategies. They work with a set of questions that focus on scientific process, use of tools and critical observation skills. The Friends review the use of tools and terminology as a way of assessing the readiness of the group to perform the data collection process. During the second year, we asked the Museum Friends to complete a brief inventory at the end of each session that rated each group’s readiness on these items. The initial data collection shows that on a scale of 1 (students know little or nothing) to 4 (students are very well prepared), the Friends found students to have moderate to good preparation with the tools (Thermometer use 3.5; Hydrometer 3.3; Graduated Cylinder 3.3)  and the least amount of preparation with scientific process (2.9). Comments from Friends also point to the level of familiarity students have with tools and process:

“…Had obviously been introduced to the vocabulary, but could only define hypothesis. They knew basics about the thermometer, but needed reminders. It was the same about the graduated cylinder and the hydrometer. The kids knew about the stain, but they were confused about its significance. The kids had heard about the hypothesis but a bit confused about meaning. They had not been introduced to the scientific concept. They obviously did pre-trip work, but needed reminders and prompting...”

 

            “Group had not made correct hypothesis, but had excellent reasons about their decision.”

 

“This was a super group. Well informed, conscientious, worked well together. Asked good questions. Had lots of questions about the water clock. “

 

“Group was interested in the investigation and appeared somewhat well prepared for their day. They knew what the tools were and what they were used for. (Esp. the hydrometer). They seemed to really understand density. They understood a lot of the science concepts even if they didn’t know all the terms.”

 

“The kids were not at all familiar with the vocabulary. They were somewhat familiar with the tools. They knew the name of the thermometer and how it works, but didn’t know hydrometer or what it measures. They didn’t know the name of the graduated cylinder but they understood it measured “how much”. The kids had not heard of scientific method. They did make reference to the [pre-visit] video…. They were very excited to solve the mystery.”

 

One challenge we discovered is a need to refine this inventory to hone in on skills and process development rather than on student behavior. We are investigating new ways to work with the Friends to help gather assessment. As we continue to develop this program we look forward to revising this process so that we can better understand the relationship between the preparation of the students and the pre-visit activities, as well as the key areas of inquiry that challenge the students most.

The pre- and post-tests provided to teachers are a more typical measurement of knowledge, and they are also a way for us to see what kind of impact the CSI program may have on the overall learning of students. The pre-and post-tests help to show students and teachers the extent of their learning through the CSI program.  

Following an orientation to the program and before beginning the unit, teachers give students the CSI pre-test. After the completion of the full program (pre-visit activities, museum visit, post-visit activities) teachers give the post-test. Test items refer specifically to scientific tools and processes used throughout the activities in the classroom and at the museum.

We found that the teachers like to use these as a way for students to assess their own work and see their progress. Teachers report that students like to see tangible results of their progress. Most students make fairly large gains from pre- to post-test. In our first two years of data collection, 752 students took the pre-test and 713 students took the original post-test from all participating schools. The vast majority (87%) of students from both districts correctly answered fewer than 5 out of 20 questions on the pre-tests. Scores on the post-test show a remarkable difference in the student achievement: Students scoring 5 or fewer correct items dropped to 15%. The number of students scoring more than 10 correctly increased to 66%.

These increases in test scores demonstrate that the CSI program activities, including the visit to The Children’s Museum, do make an impressive difference in student achievement on the post-test. Test results from a subset of 190 paired pre- and post-test scores indicate an overall increase of 66%. The statistical analysis of this sample of student test scores reveals that there is a statistically significant difference between pre- and post-test scores (p=0.000).

            This process has been useful for us in working to develop systems and measures that help us gauge the value of the museum visit and the overall classroom experience. Still, we must continually revisit and revise our pre-and post-test questions so that we are focusing on the most highly valued knowledge and build our own understanding of what students are really learning. The results from the original test format and changes in the program suggested by teachers and Museum Friends prompted us to review what we were really measuring and as a result we have changed the test to better reflect the national standards. We designed the new test around the use of tools and scientific process. The new test consists of questions that measure the student’s understanding of when to use certain tools, how to make measurements, and how to identify parts of the scientific process. We ask questions such as: 

·        Use the picture of the thermometer to answer these questions: What is the temperature shown in Fahrenheit? What is the temperature shown in Celsius? 

·        Match the science tool with its name.

·        “Mary took the temperature of the water and recorded the results in her journal.” Which part of the Scientific Method does this describe?

Though we are not yet complete with the 2006-2007 CSI program, the results from initial pre- and post-tests suggest that while students are scoring slightly higher on the re-designed pre-test, they appear overall to be scoring as well or better on the new version of the post-test than in the original format. In the new test version, students are scoring an average of 5 of 13 correct answers on the pre-test and 11 of 13 correct on the post-test. We are confident that our continued evaluation of the assessments toward student learning and understanding is helping us build a better program.

            After two full years of implementation we are beginning to see the real impact of the CSI program. At a time when schools are plagued with an overwhelming pressure to teach to the test, the CSI program is thriving. While CSI is clearly a departure from the scripted pacing guides that many districts now favor, our two district partners, the Indianapolis Public Schools and Wayne Township Schools, have made a commitment to continue the program and increase the number of schools and students involved. The district support for the school liaison will continue, as well as an increased level of support for four new pilot programs, technology support and teacher release time for increased participation.

Teachers respond very well to the program because it provides them with focused instruction on both logistics and science content. We provide all the materials, forms and museum-day supervision – which greatly decreased much of the “science anxiety” that comes with a hands-on science investigation. We provide content support which greatly improves “content expertise” for the teachers. In addition, our highly trained volunteers allow the teachers to focus on the preparation and follow-up learning. The teachers who participate in CSI are seeing a program that models and applies strong science instruction. Teachers have responded positively to exploring science inquiry methods that they use and build upon throughout the year.

            For the students, this guided investigation changes them from casual learners to committed learners. Students ask questions, plan strategies, collect data and communicate findings. For almost all of them this is the first experience with the science enterprise. Prior to this program most students participated in literature-based science reading with very little hands-on measurement or inquiry. They have not participated in any science based investigation where they make findings based upon the data they collect. The CSI program requires students to communicate and defend their findings in post-visit class discussions. It provides them with an opportunity to explore science thinking and the scientific enterprise. For most students, this may be the only time they are exposed to these experiences until the upper grades.

            The third group for which the impact is real and observable is the Museum Friends. Many are senior citizens who have discovered a new comfort level in working with children and with science concepts, and thus a new zest for living in a multi-generational culture. These volunteers look forward to Tuesday mornings when they need to be sharp and focused and compassionate in dealing with children, many of whom are from underserved families. Other volunteers are young mothers whose enhanced knowledge of science through CSI gives them a basis for conversation with their own children and a better understanding of the work their children bring home from school. As one volunteer lamented last year when summer arrived, he missed coming and had “the Tuesday morning CSI blues!”

Future Directions

            The success of the CSI program with third grade classrooms across the city has been tremendous. Each year we work with 22 different schools in two districts and more than 1,500 students. This prompted us to begin piloting new programs for Grades 4, 6 and 7. Each of these programs will employ similar formats with professional development for teachers and authentic experiences for students both in the classroom and at the museum, particularly around topics of biotechnology and dinosaurs.

In addition we continue to look for ways to strengthen and support our professional development activities and increase student science literacy. Further, we are exploring the options available through web-based learning to include families in their own CSI investigations. Each of these avenues provides us with the opportunity to showcase the museum as a pivot point for learning activities. These kinds of free-choice learning activities provide young people and adults the opportunity to be in charge of their own learning and set the direction for their inquiry. We can provide authentic experiences that demonstrate the best opportunities for science learning.

            While we work to create new versions of the program, we are still focused on refining and building our evaluation and research of the student and teacher learning. The museum’s partnership with Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis provides us with the opportunity to work closely with science education and informal learning specialists who can help us increase our assessment capacity and assist in the on-going research and evaluation of the program. We work closely with Butler University and its pre-service science educators, offering a way to build their own science literacy while working with children.  Finally, our continued partnership with the Wayne Township school district gives us opportunities to work closely with teachers in developing curriculum and testing ideas.

            Our ultimate goal is to create opportunities in our community where the museum serves as a resource and a destination for science-based learning for children and adults. We want to create extraordinary experiences in lifelong learning that stimulate an interest in science and ultimately contribute to scientific literacy. As we like to say in CSI: “This is science. Don’t take our word for it, try it yourself.”

References

American Association of Museums. (2004). Accreditation report of The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis. Washington, D.C. Author.

Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D. (2002). Lessons without limit: How free-choice learning is transforming education. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

National Science Education Standards. (1996). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (expanded 2^nd Edition). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

 

 

Are you absolutely sure you want to delete this article? This process cannot be undone and is permanent.

Yes, Delete This Article

Are you absolutely sure you want to remove this article? This process cannot be undone and is permanent.

Yes, Remove This Article